The present invention is directed toward a safety apparatus and more particularly toward a safety apparatus in the form of a beam anchor such as commonly used as a safety device for steel workers and others working on elevated structures. The invention includes a load attachment traversing device that engages an I-beam for movement therealong and which includes a lanyard or the like that can be attached to a harness worn by a workman.
Construction of steel frame structures, such as industrial plants and office buildings, often involves the necessity for steelworkers and other construction personal to work at considerable heights above the ground in order to fasten individual beams and other components together. In such high rise construction, these activities may take place in environments that are subject to wind and weather. In addition, workers may simply stumble or lose their footing are also subject to the mistakes of others on the project site and to the typical construction site hazards of miscommunication or equipment failure that may cause them to fall. As a result, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) of the United States, and similar agencies in other jurisdictions, have promulgated rules and regulations which require various safety devices to be used by workers who are exposed to the potential of a fall from an elevated structure.
In spite of the numerous devices which have so far been offered to the marketplace, a continuing need exists for a simple, inexpensive device which can be used by steelworkers and similar workmen to provide secure fall protection. The need for such devices is especially seen in conjunction with work where significant freedom of movement is needed to accomplish particular tasks, or where improved productivity can result from additional freedom of movement. As should be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, a device which can provide both additional freedom of movement and assure fall protection would be of great benefit in increasing the productivity on a construction project. To accomplish its desired results, however, such a device must also be easy to use by the workman for whom it is designed to protect.
Devices of the character just described and which provide some of the desired general capabilities have been proposed. These are disclosed, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 3,217,833 to Smith; U.S. Pat. No. 4,037,824 to Whitmer; U.S. Pat. No. 4,052,028 to Cordero, Jr.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,606,430 to Roby et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 4,767,091 to Cuny; U.S. Pat. No. 5,029,670 to Whitmer and U.S. Pat. No. 5,711,397 to Flora et al.
The safety devices proposed in these prior art patents are of two basic types. First, some devices are fixed at a point of attachment with respect to the steel beam members, such as described in the Whitmer patents. The fixed devices of Whitmer provide a method for securing a safety line to a perimeter cable, but inherently limit the steelworker's speed and mobility due to the necessity of stopping to clip on and off of a fixed line. Second, other types of devices are moveable with respect to the beams to which they are attached, such as shown in the Smith, Cordero, Jr., Roby et al., Cuny and Flora et al. patents.
In Smith, a rigid, elongated, back support bar is utilized. The device highly restricts the workman's ability to move around. Therefore, Smith's device is not believed to be conducive to high productivity. However, the device does provide an adjustable plate and locking pin so that the device can be utilized on beams of various sizes.
In both the Roby et al and Cuny, a rolling clamp device is provided for mounting on a steel track or beam, respectively. These devices are relatively large and it would be difficult to require workmen to carry such a device around a jobsite. Also, both the Roby and Cuny devices utilize an articulating clamp structure which must be properly adjusted and locked in place in order to secure the device. As a result of the articulating structure, both of these devices suffer from the inability to be adjusted for beams of various widths.
Cordero, Jr. proposes a device which is capable of width adjustment for attachment to beams of various sizes. However, his device has many parts and is relatively clumsy to manipulate between beams during the course of a day's work.
Another common deficiency of the above prior art devices is that they are relatively cumbersome to pick up and relocate to new steel beams. The combination of the complexity of operation, the relatively heavy weight, and the orientation requirements of the various prior art devices presents the risk that they will not be used properly or will not be used at all. The device disclosed in Flora et al. attempted to solve some of these problems but still has its limitations. More particularly, the device does not easily slide along the beam as the workman moves. Furthermore, difficulties can be encountered in adjusting the width of the device to fit different size beams.